Saturday, November 04, 2006

I Still Miss Republicans

A flurry of links made me backtrack -- and I have discovered my old-days conservative blogging pal John Cole has basically said he just can't swing with the Republicans anymore, and name-checked the article over which we became acquainted -- I Miss Republicans. I look back at that article where I say "I don't like to get overtly political here..." and laugh and laugh.

But that's what the last two years have gotten us. Cole is no less a conservative than he ever was -- but he's a principled conservative, and that's what doomed him. He called bullshit on torture and smear campaigns and mismanagement of Iraq because they were wrong and he refused to drink the kool-aid just to get along/go along. That doesn't mean he's suddenly universal health-care boy.

And hell, I am in no way shape or form more liberal than I was two years ago. But the things that made me go "huh, that's weird" two years ago have now escalated to the point where I am genuinely convinced this country is being run by actual crazy people. To be blunt, a country where John Cole and I find ourselves on the same side of the "What the Fuck?" line has gone seriously, seriously off the rails.

I don't call myself a Democrat -- I know this will anger some of my more politically-minded friends, but I don't self-identify around political parties. To me that's about as relevant as calling myself a Whig. I have my little checklist of political beliefs, and whatever candidate most matches them, I vote for them. It's just the crazy time that we live in where my checklist item #1 -- "Basic competence and decent grip on reality" has been completely abandoned by one party's rulers.

In the same way that right now, if you're a progressive you currently vote Democrat, as a conservative you suddenly find yourself without a party. Because whatever the hell Bush and company are doing in Washington, that ain't Republicans.

Listen, we've all had the questionable hook-up. We get it. Bush didn't seem at all crazy when you met him at the club. And sure you dabbled in faith-based stuff, and maybe his foreign policy was a little naive, but come on -- sexy, sexy tax cuts.

But then things got out of control, and kinkier and kinkier and next thing you know you're in a war with no occupation planning and no exit strategy and being told that's okay and back off; and people are being tortured, and then not allowed to talk to their lawyers because they might reveal the secrets of their torture; and the one dude who had oversight on the corruption in the war is fired in secret; and you have record deficits and record spending and Congress meeting over Terry Schiavo and warrantless wiretaps and faith-based anti-science and the end of separation of Church and State and troop families in food banks and the most venal Congress in history and Abramoff and K Street and Young Republican college students in charge of Iraqui reconstruction and fucking HORSE LAWYERS IN CHARGE OF FEMA and bing bang boom you got a whole American city, just lying there dead, no explanations, no excuses, just stunned at how the hell you got here. Exactly like our questionable hook-ups, just substitute "waitress in Provost" for "New Orleans" and "all that vodka and blow" for "Hurricane Katrina" --

But let's not get distracted. Point is -- questionable hook-ups. We, as ordinary citizens, all know how we get out of this: you stop returning the crazy person's calls. We promise never to bring it up when drinking. Several years from now, when everything's scabbed over the two of us can joke about our mutual lapses in judgement while sharing a fine Rolling Rock beverage.

Don't return their calls on Tuesday. It'll suck for a while, and they may bomb Iran to get your attention, and you'll get lots of screaming and crying about how they're the only ones who love you and can protect you from Osama and the gays, but you dig in, man up, come over and watch a few baseball games,and ride it out. You'll probably have to hang tough through 2008, when they have that fake rehab "No baby, I'm okay now, come with me to group" bullshit going on. Don't fall for it. Cra. zy.

Then one day -- one day soon, I promise -- you find you've gone and gotten your party back from the crazy people, and you and I can go back to arguing about minimum wage and universal health care and tax rates on millionaires like civilized countries do.

94 comments:

The current Republican administration has me feeling about Republicanism like Chris Rock said he feels about modern rap music:

Now I'm 39, and I still love rap music. I love rap music. I love it.

But I'm tired of defending it.

'Cause you gotta defend rap music, man, man, 'cause people always go "That's not music! That's not art! That's garbage! How can you listen to that garbage! How can you listen to that trash!"

And in the old days, it was easy to defend rap music. It was easy to defend it on an intellectual level. You could break it down intellectually. Why Grandmaster Flash was art. Why Run-DMC was art. Why Whodini was art, and music. You could break it down intellectually, okay?

And I love all the rappers today, but it's hard to defend this shit. It's hard, man. It's hard to defend "I got hoes in different area codes." It's hard to defend "Move, bitch, get out the way."

See, no need to defend, gaijin old friend, as that's not really republicanism. That's the crazy person currently living in your party.

Just take a little break from them. Hell, Democrats are to the right of Nixon now, on most issues. Hang with them until things settle down, and you're free of neocons and weldon and Allen and Musgrave and Cheney. It'll be very low key.

I think part of the problem here is that people like John Cole may have felt they faced a choice between (1) backing Bush, or (2) rejecting principles of conservatism all together, becoming liberals, and endorsing the Democratic party's platform. I know I've felt that way. That's the weakness of a 2-party system in which neither choice is all that appealing.

If we had had two Republican options, like say Bush vs. Smart Republican Guy, we would have backed SRG. But faced with the prospect of Bush or Reject All Your Beliefs, we went with Bush.

By way of lame-ass analogy, consider Yankees fans. They have no problem criticizing Steinbrenner, the team manager, or even the players themselves. But it's always understood that they love the team and want it to win. Just because they criticize the Yankees, no one would assume that they actually like the Red Sox. In our hyperpartisan political climate, conservative Republicans have lacked the same freedom to criticize their team.

My proposal for a prescription: you need a solid Third and possibly Fourth Party as an ongoing, available option here. That's all. Just in case this ever happens again, so that you have an alternative to those two options you're straitjacketing yourself into.

The only problem with the analogy, of course, is that backing Bush meant you WERE "Rejecting All Your Beliefs". Fiscal restraint? Abandoned. Competent government? Abandoned. Pro-science? Abandoned. Separation of Church and State? Abandoned. Smart war on terror, in a way that actually gets results? Abandoned. Supporting the troops fiscally at home and with the materials they need to accomplish their mission in the field? Abandoned. Pragmatic foreign policy with layers of planning? Abandoned. Distrust of nation -building --

You get the picture. As I've said, I honestly don't know what the hhell is in the Democratic platform that's so horrible that sticking with the people who jettisoned the above seems justifiable. More Congesssional oversight on no-contract bidding? Higher minimum wage? Universal Health care, like every other industrialized nation in the world? Seriously, we've got pro-life Democrats and guys who don't like gay marriage in there, it's not an automatic shutout.

the crazy girlfriend theory is spot on rogers. i even use it to describe why sports teams keep hiring guys like ron artest and terrel owens. yeah, the sex is spectacular, even legendary but there always seems to follow with that night she comes through the window, the dogs leave her alone because she's familiar, and you wake up with her hands around your throat. your take on how to respond is also perfect. don't return the calls, don't attend group with her, don't talk to her counselor. i might add that you will only make things worse if you date any of her friends. what's called for is a total break. as far as dealing with the absence of the legendary sex, i suggest seeking "professional help." there's nothing like a good, ethical whore to help you get over the crazy amatuers.

aside to gaijin: i tell people that the whole point of young people's music resides in rap right now. the best music of my youth was the stuff that made my parents shout "turn that shit down!" the beatles were cute, cuddly and acceptable. the beach boys were wholesome on the surface. the doors got the response i was looking for.

IANAPsychiatrist, but it's funny how schizophrenia has its own characteristic literary style, isn't it? I see stuff like that handwritten edge-to-edge on notebook paper and stapled to telephone poles all the time. I hope the dude at least has meds so he can maybe go back on them.

Um, Kalki, I mean, not John, who is spot-on as usual. I keep telling people I have no problem voting conservative; I just hope someday somebody gives me the chance to.

Hm. That's something that I've never quite been able to viscerally get about the US political scene, the immense strength of the party system. I'm no stranger to the partisanship, I lived in the States for the two years up to the last election, and I read a lot of US political blogs and other media, but... I still can't quite understand why people still feel embarrassed when they feel they have to abandon a mainstream political party, founded to serve purposes that are very far from their own priorities.

I mean, here in the UK, it's embarrassing to be a supporter of any of the main parties, regardless of your beliefs. You're seen as a party hack and/or a bit of a sheep. Old-school conservatives I know will slag off the Tory party as much as I will. I don't see that ours are any better or worse than yours, and I don't see that they've made any worse a job of differentiating themselves from each other - it's just that nobody believes them when they claim to be different, certainly not after all the years of Blairism.

It's something that I really, truly don't get. Rogers' statement that "I have my little checklist of political beliefs, and whatever candidate most matches them, I vote for them." seems eminently rational. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Fridgemagnet, that is the way it's supposed to work, but the fallout can be unexpected. Voting for a sane and rational Republican in this election is not only voting for the candidate. It's also voting for the party, because the plum committee chairships and the powerful appointments and positions (like Speaker of the House) go to members of the party with the majority in Congress. So, vote for the sane Republican who represents your views better than his Democratic opponent, and get Dennis Hastert second in line for the Presidency, should Bush and Cheney both bite the big one.

This is the first time in my life that I'm going to vote a straight ticket. I'm unhappily voting for a party which I don't really trust all that much, but which I think/hope has to be better than what we've got now.

Fine, I think that's all very rational too - I can't speak for the benefits of voting for a ticket in your situation vs not, but the idea of tactical voting based on other broader considerations of affiliation isn't alien. Vote for the option most likely to result in the sanest result, whether that's a local candidate who reflects your views, or one who might not but will result in national policy change which you agree with. Whilst the party system exists you can't divorce a candidate's affiliation from their personal position, or at least, you can't usually discount it.

I suppose what puzzles me is that some people feel reluctant to do that either on a local or national basis... the idea that anyone has party loyalty any more. Perhaps I'm just basically a traitorous opportunist :)

You might not believe that you aren't a "democrat" or a "republican" and that you can vote for an "individual" based on how they "stack up with you on the issues", but when the naivity drug wears off, you ought to come to grips with the fact that what really determines how policy gets made is which party is in control.

In other words, a vote for a D is a vote to have Nancy Pelosi controlling the process and a vote for an R is a vote to let Denny Hastert do it, no matter what cute things your own rep or senator might say about your own pet issue.

Does no one else see the oddity/hystericalness in declaring our "interrogation" methods a matter of National Security. Per security, you can only release classified information to other people who possess that classification. As far as I can tell, interrogating uncleared foreign nationals pretty much violates the ethos of a security clearance as you are now passing on classified information to uncleared personnel. A big no-no in security circles.

Wow. Maybe this is the Bush White House stealth method of taking "interrogation" off the table? Ahh, those clever Repubs, I knew they couldn't be all bad.

Throw in that I can't vote for a party that actually wants to return to the gold standard. Well, that combined with all the homophobic, anti-science, war mongering, rich-loving & Christianist craziness.

Great post that very clearly defines my own personal wishes - to just put all the back-stabbing bullshit aside and slowly move the crazies out of strategic positions of power so that we can vigorously debate health care and interstate highway funding and all those other things that, as you so rightly stated, "civilized countries" deal with... By the way, name a couple of the civilized countries left out there?

fridgemagnet, the US Legislature is structured around a party system. The majority party gets all the committee chairs, and it's the committees that set the legislative agenda. I don't know enough of the nuts-and-bolts of how parliamentary structures work; i.e., how legislation gets proposed, how investigations are done, what kind of control committees and committee chairs have over things.

Each system has its ups and downs. Parliamentary systems are kind of unstable, since a Prime Minister usually needs to build a coalition in order to govern and the coalition can shift or fall apart and bring a whole government down. That's how it seems to work out in Israel and Italy, at least, where they have a lot of splinter parties bargaining with the bigger ones to cobble together very thin mandates. Piss off one splinter party, and the whole coalition is toast - so the PMs wind up making deals that they ordinarily wouldn't want to have any part of, to keep people they ordinarily wouldn't want anything to do with in the coalition.

Yeah, I'm a nonRepublican non Democrat conservative except when I'm liberal. According to those oh-so-accurate online tests, I'm 28% Republican, 14% Democrat... that leaves 56% "something else" and it ain't the Green party.I wish there was a None of The Above box on the ballot.

I think the "None of the Above" option is the line where you write-in a name.

I've written in family members & friends names before, when I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of the listed candidates. It's effectively casting a non-vote, but it is as close to "None of the Above" as you'll get.

While I'm glad to see moderate Republicans finally supporting competence and reality (or at least not actively supporting incompetence and unreality), it's about 10 years too late to get any huzzahs from me. The Jesus-loving nutjobs who dominate the party today have been there a long time, they just started in their own states, getting majorities on school boards and state legislatures. But they were never content to stay there, they always aspired to big-money federal power. They couldn't wait to start picking Supreme Court justices. And they were quite open about these ambitions as well. The moderate Republicans weren't fooled by anyone, they willingly and cravenly handed power over to the people who could get them a majority in Congress. They also gleefully piled on every time somone dared to say anything against Bush, when it was politically unpopular to do so (to disagree with the Decider). So maybe this should be a lesson to people who now identify themselves as REAL Republicans - when religious nutjobs say they hope one day to have a Congress and Supreme Court that will outlaw homosexuality, abortion, boobies on TV, etc., take him/her seriously and vote for the other guy, even if the other guy has D in front of his name. Once religious nutjobs get a foot in the door, they don't wanna leave.

Your Republican Party = Crazy Stalker Girlfriend equation makes me blink in surprise, because on the feminist side of the blogosphere it's been obvious for quite a while that Republican Party = Crazy Abusive Boyfriend. The difference? The AB is substantively violent, tries to control your body, and threatens your children to keep you in line -- in between saying, "baby, you know I'm not like that, I'll be so good to you from now on, I promise."

Does this analogy work for you, or is it too threatening to your masculinity?

None of the Above would give us another election, maybe with a 2 week or 30 day deadline, in which none of the candidates listed on the ballot can run. So, when they all suck, we can get a fresh batch.Or maybe a 'BOTH' box on the ballot, and they would have to share an office and a seat, and a pen on the house floor. Big Brother, meet Congress!May not be effective, but it would be quite entertaining!

My thing is that Democrats are like the abused wives who continually back down and let -- even encourage -- abusive husbands (the Republicans) continally beat the shit out of them. In this horrible, yet oddly appropriate analogy the third parties are like their children. The abused wife likes to take out her frustrations by screaming at the children because she's too weak to take on the abusive father.

Personally, I'm tired of getting screamed at because I don't vote Democrat. Just because the neocons are fucking evil doesn't mean I should have to choose the ready-made alternative, especially when both parties are controlled by the same interests.

Republicans are anti-science? Why? Because they refuse to manufacture human beings for the small chance there might be cure for disease? Liberals kill me. All that talk of compassion. Criticize when nothing is done in Rwanda, Bosnia, Uganda, Somalia, and so on, but when something is done in Iraq and it's a Republican in the chair, they cry murder. Perhaps you prefer a few more terrorist attacks? Iran should have nuclear power? Let's get a Democratic president to lead us, that way, all the countries will love us, right? Republicans crazy? Liberals try to save murderers and rapist while trying to ensure the right to kill unborn children. Maybe that's why so many Americans can't vote liberal. But you can just throw in a little pro-life joke so we can all have a laugh. Excuse me, I'm going to be sick.